Back

Lactate arterial-central venous gradient among COVID-19 patients in ICU: a potential tool in the clinical practice.

Nardi, G.; Sanson, G.; Tassinari, L.; Guiotto, G.; Potalivo, A.; Montomoli, J.; Schiraldi, F.

2020-05-12 intensive care and critical care medicine
10.1101/2020.05.08.20095042
Show abstract

ObjectiveIn physiological conditions arterial blood lactate concentration is equal or lower than central venous. The aim of this study was to explore if the COVID-19 induced lung cells damage was mirrored by an arterial lactatemia higher than the central venous one; then if the administration of immunosuppressant drugs (i.e. canakinumab) could normalize such abnormal lactate a-cv difference. MethodsProspective cohort study started on March 25th 2020 for a duration of 10 days, enrolling 21 patients affected by severe COVID-19 pneumonia undergoing mechanical ventilation consecutively admitted to the ICU of the Rimini Hospital, Italy. Arterial and central venous blood samples were contemporary collected to calculate the difference between arterial and central venous lactate (Delta a-cv lactate) concentration within 24 h from tracheal intubation (T0), and 24 hours after canakinumab administration (T1). ResultsAt the T0 19/21 (90.5%) patients showed a pathologic Delta a-cv lactate (median 0.22 mmol/L; IQR 0.07-0.36), suggesting severe inflammation. In the 13 patients undergoing canakinumab administration, at the T1 Delta a-cv lactate decreased in 92.3% of cases, being the decrease statistically significant (T0: median 0.15, IQR 0.07-0.25 mmol/L; T1: median -0.01, IQR 0.09-0.04 mmol/L; p=0.002). ConclusionA reversed Delta a-cv lactate is likely to be one of the effects of COVID-19 related cytokine storm, that could reflect a derangement in the lung cells mitochondrial metabolism induced by inflammation or other uncoupling mediators. Delta a-cv lactate decrease may reflect the anti-inflammatory activity of canakinumab. Our preliminary findings need to be confirmed by larger outcome studies.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Frontiers in Medicine
based on 99 papers
Top 0.2%
12.5%
2
Critical Care
based on 14 papers
Top 0.1%
11.2%
3
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 46%
11.1%
4
Journal of Clinical Medicine
based on 77 papers
Top 1%
6.4%
5
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 29%
6.4%
6
European Respiratory Journal
based on 44 papers
Top 1%
5.1%
50% of probability mass above
7
Frontiers in Immunology
based on 140 papers
Top 2%
4.5%
8
Biomedicines
based on 21 papers
Top 0.5%
2.8%
9
Journal of Internal Medicine
based on 12 papers
Top 0.1%
2.4%
10
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
based on 15 papers
Top 0.7%
2.3%
11
Cells
based on 14 papers
Top 0.4%
2.3%
12
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
based on 22 papers
Top 2%
1.8%
13
Frontiers in Physiology
based on 18 papers
Top 1%
1.6%
14
Heliyon
based on 57 papers
Top 7%
1.3%
15
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
based on 137 papers
Top 8%
1.3%
16
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
based on 23 papers
Top 1%
1.3%
17
Critical Care Explorations
based on 15 papers
Top 2%
1.3%
18
Aging
based on 18 papers
Top 3%
1.3%
19
BMJ Open
based on 553 papers
Top 45%
1.3%
20
ERJ Open Research
based on 36 papers
Top 2%
1.3%
21
Biology Methods and Protocols
based on 19 papers
Top 2%
1.2%
22
iScience
based on 74 papers
Top 7%
0.8%
23
Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences
based on 10 papers
Top 0.7%
0.8%
24
Clinical Immunology
based on 12 papers
Top 1%
0.8%
25
Journal of Personalized Medicine
based on 17 papers
Top 2%
0.8%
26
Clinical and Translational Science
based on 14 papers
Top 3%
0.7%
27
BMC Infectious Diseases
based on 110 papers
Top 21%
0.7%
28
Vaccines
based on 131 papers
Top 7%
0.7%
29
Frontiers in Nutrition
based on 13 papers
Top 2%
0.7%
30
Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics
based on 10 papers
Top 2%
0.7%